Why no modern English trad Bible translation?
(05-05-2021, 03:42 PM)Bryan Wrote: A few months ago, I decided to read the Bible straight through and I got the DR b/c it's the one favored. I'm an attorney who graduated second in his law school class. In other words, I'm more than comfortable reading difficult stuff.

The Bible is a collection of works. "Straight through" doesn't make as much sense because of this.

As far as law goes, theology is even more demanding than law, and reading the Bible in isolation is dangerous, as much as a first year student learning about the basics of law.

It is probably good it is difficult to read, because it reminds one that it is not meant to be read that way in the first place.

As Peter himself noted:

2 Peter 3:15-16 Wrote:And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Difficulty is also relative to one's background: law is not a background to scripture and theology any more it is to electrical engineering.

You start at square one with a law degree just as you would without one. A background in poetry is probably more useful to scripture reading than a law degree.
(05-05-2021, 05:59 PM)Bryan Wrote: I don't find it readable. There are dialogue exchanges where it isn't clear who's talking. Lots of pronouns when use of a proper noun would clear up who's speaking. 

If it works for you, it works for you. I'm not here to convince you otherwise, just telling you my experience.

You do realize that if a version is made that is "readable", it is very often interpreting scripture, giving information that is not actually present in the original text.

Ambiguity is rife in ancient writings. It is difficult because it is, in fact, difficult, even with a solid understanding of the original languages.

As I noted in my previous response, Peter refers to this to native speakers of the languages used in St. Paul's writings. how much more difficult is it for ancient Hebrew and Aramaic texts which might have been translated and interpreted each time before making it to English?

Read Exodus 4 and explain verses 24-26, using any translation you wish. Are any more clear without adding significant commentary and opinion than the base text regardless of translation?

I am not saying that you should favor any one translation or the original text. All translations that are unfamiliar are "weird" and all are difficult to understand fully, even if just by the nature of the works themselves. It all depends on why you are reading it, and that is the main issue: reading aimlessly is kind of pointless. Going through the Bible in order is a good way to get an overview of what is in it, but it isn't much value otherwise. It doesn't really inform one of anything useful particularly. It is good to do in a way, but it is hardly necessary or particularly useful. People have spent thousands of years (literally) going through the original text in detail and discussing continuously what is written and that is not going to end any time soon, so reading through it continuously is just an exercise at best. The translation one uses should first not be a hindrance to one's spiritual life, but it is otherwise based on one's reason for reading it in the first place. That is the key: the purpose for reading is more important than the translation.

Endlessly translating the text doesn't solve any problems. It in fact introduced problems as each translation is almost always an interpretation in some way and that has to be carefully scrutinized. One of the biggest issues is whether the translators of the Old Testament use the Masoretic Text, which was specifically created to interpret and redefine scripture after the destruction of the Temple in an attempt to unify the remnants of the pharisees against Christians and other threats to their survival.

This is the whole "young woman" issue: all the ancient Jews had no problem with this being the authoritative common understanding and correct translation:

Isaias 7:14 Wrote:διὰ τοῦτο δώσει Κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον· ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει, καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ᾿Εμμανουήλ·

Any translation which does not agree with this is taking the opinion of people revising scripture after it was fulfilled.

Endlessly translating just introduced more concerns at best most of the time. It is always going to be a little difficult to read just by the nature of being ancient writing: they wrote differently even if we do not consider the language differences.

This is why new translations are not a good idea: it requires a lot of trust in the translator and a lot of justification over the old texts which we can read just fine and form the basis for works which quote them extensively.
I am very happy with the Confraternity edition of the New Testament.  It is a revision of the Douay-Rheims that was published in 1941.  It is traditional.  A very nice pocket edition is available from Scepter Publishers.
"[I]t is vain to hope to attract souls to God by a bitter zeal."  Pope St. Pius X.

"If anyone deludes himself by thinking he is serving God, when he has not learned to control his tongue, the service he gives is vain.  If he is to offer service pure and unblemished in the sight of God, who is our Father, he must take care of orphans and widows in their need, and keep himself unstained by the world."  James 1:26-27.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)